94.197.143.170 (talk) →R&I case conduct: new section |
Undid revision 492925705 by 94.197.143.170 (talk) rv disruptive edit of banned user - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
'''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough closed|Original announcement]]''' |
'''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough closed|Original announcement]]''' |
||
:This has been a very bad decision. Undue weight was given to Brad being a bit stubborn, uncommunicative, and a bit uncooperative, and short shrift was given to the opinions of the many people who thanked him, gave awards to him, feel themselves and the project indebted to him, and the quite serious disruption to important projects and harm to the entire project that results from this action. Several of the "charges" against Rich seem to be very petty indeed. The words used to support "abusiveness" on his part were the kind of thing more mature Wikipedians would laugh off and take on the chin for the sake of the project. How many of us have suffered much clearer cases of "abuse" but didn't feel the need to push a formal process to have the person banned, effect on the project be damned, just because you have been insulted? And this man was very useful! This was no ordinary editor. His bots do the work of thousands of manhours in very short time and move the whole increasingly unweildy project forward by keeping an eye on thousands of things, catching serious errors that had stood for a very long time, making a mockery of the project. For more details, check out his user and talk pages, look at the praise for and accompishments of this good Wikipedian. For the other "offensives", they these ten administrators point to nothing that can be shown to have harmed the project, it was all depicted as a sort of defense of principles, only, and a look at the long list of accomplishments, praise, and Wikilove was not given due weight! There was even a kerfuffle about him changing tiny bits of whitespace, my lord, who cares? Let it go, for crissake, or better said for the sake of the project. Please run the process again, this time taking into consideration a thourough investigation into his accomplishments and the serious disruption to the project that results from this rash, uninformed, disruptive, and punitive decision. [[User:Chrisrus|Chrisrus]] ([[User talk:Chrisrus|talk]]) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC) |
:This has been a very bad decision. Undue weight was given to Brad being a bit stubborn, uncommunicative, and a bit uncooperative, and short shrift was given to the opinions of the many people who thanked him, gave awards to him, feel themselves and the project indebted to him, and the quite serious disruption to important projects and harm to the entire project that results from this action. Several of the "charges" against Rich seem to be very petty indeed. The words used to support "abusiveness" on his part were the kind of thing more mature Wikipedians would laugh off and take on the chin for the sake of the project. How many of us have suffered much clearer cases of "abuse" but didn't feel the need to push a formal process to have the person banned, effect on the project be damned, just because you have been insulted? And this man was very useful! This was no ordinary editor. His bots do the work of thousands of manhours in very short time and move the whole increasingly unweildy project forward by keeping an eye on thousands of things, catching serious errors that had stood for a very long time, making a mockery of the project. For more details, check out his user and talk pages, look at the praise for and accompishments of this good Wikipedian. For the other "offensives", they these ten administrators point to nothing that can be shown to have harmed the project, it was all depicted as a sort of defense of principles, only, and a look at the long list of accomplishments, praise, and Wikilove was not given due weight! There was even a kerfuffle about him changing tiny bits of whitespace, my lord, who cares? Let it go, for crissake, or better said for the sake of the project. Please run the process again, this time taking into consideration a thourough investigation into his accomplishments and the serious disruption to the project that results from this rash, uninformed, disruptive, and punitive decision. [[User:Chrisrus|Chrisrus]] ([[User talk:Chrisrus|talk]]) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
== R&I case conduct == |
|||
The conduct of this review has been quite astonishing. We saw a huge amount of evidence added well after the decisions had started; then voting on sanctions against users who were not part of the original case and before they had even been notified that they were added as parties; now we see a party arguing against the finding of fact ostensibly on the grounds that one of the votes was recorded late but actually because they don't like it. Is there any kind of case management going on here, or is this actually intended to be the kind of shambles that it has degenerated into? What a mess! [[User:I'm sorry about your trousers|I'm sorry about your trousers]] ([[User talk:I'm sorry about your trousers|talk]]) 12:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:By setting up this quasi-courtroom style of hearing cases, the Committee opens itself up to criticims based on the apparent process that was or was not followed, i.e. "why did you make your decisions this way, isn't that out of order?" and the like. I think the Committee would really do itself a favor by scrapping the current system and setting up a different [[paradigm]] that focuses on the big picture, the desired end-state, and finding a way to help editors out of [http://learnthis.ca/2011/02/book-review-leadership-and-self-deception/ their "boxes"]. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 13:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::In fact both of these comments are misguided. The case has been handled to produce precisely the desired outcome, as predicted long since. The extra evidence was actively solicited, and indeed transferred onto the evidence page, by the drafting arbitrator, to bolster the case against the Deviant Art community, whom ArbComm have decided to declare an "out" group. The decision was closed hastily to try and curtail a vote on the final sanction. The favoured party is even now being allowed to argue their case over again to find ArbComm a loophole to exonerate them. This isn't bad management, it is intentional, to show the community that ArbComm can and will do exactly what it wants to keep the out people out and the in people in. Even this little discussion was summarily deleted on the excuse that it was discussing the decisions, when in fact it is exactly a renegotiation of the decision which is being allowed to proceed. A discussion on ArbComm's conduct is the unpalatable part of it. You will know that things have got really bad when this discussion is allowed to proceed -- that will be the sign that ArbComm has reached a position of terminal disdain for the editor community and no longer even troubles to hide its cynical manipulation of the arbitration process. [[Special:Contributions/94.197.143.170|94.197.143.170]] ([[User talk:94.197.143.170|talk]]) 21:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:18, 16 May 2012
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Edit request
On Template:Casenav please change "Decision posted" in second line section to "Proposed decision" to be consistent with T:AC Nobody Ent 12:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
So arbcom passed a remedy admonishing Mathsci for battlefield conduct without actually passing a finding of fact saying that he engaged in battlefield conduct. Heh. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Shit. Mea culpa, I thought I had voted on all the Mathsci findings of facts, but I seemingly missed the crucial one. I'm actually stumped at what the pricedural process is now... Courcelles 05:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Probably to vote on the FoF on the PD page now as the correction of a "slip". Then the FoF can be enacted and the Final Decision updated. I think that's the least bureaucratic route, Roger Davies talk 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am relieved that Roger Davies and other arbitrators have addressed and will further address the problem of proxy-editing. Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC) duplicated and unnecessary comments refactored from here - apologies to Roger Davies and other arbitrators
- Duplicatory. Please keep discussion centralised here. Roger Davies talk 08:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Probably to vote on the FoF on the PD page now as the correction of a "slip". Then the FoF can be enacted and the Final Decision updated. I think that's the least bureaucratic route, Roger Davies talk 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Policy on voting
How far back can arbiters change their vote? Do they need approval from the committee to make such a change? Where in the rules is the right to change ones vote after the close ensconced? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you're referring to the above incident, there was no change of vote. Courcelles voted on the remedy along with a comment which showed his intent, and his understanding of the issue, but had forgotten to sign off the finding. The guideline for the Clerks is "If there are any ambiguities concerning which proposals have been adopted, the Clerk should identify them so the Arbitrators have an opportunity to clarify them before the decision is finalized and announced". Slips happen, and now that the matter has been identified appropriate action has been taken. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Right, so how far back can arbiters go back and realize they voted wrongly? I have a very specific vote in mind where an arbiter very specifically complained about how they would have voted differently in a circumstance, so I want to know if that complaint was before or after the deadline. Hipocrite (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know which case you have in mind but there's a very big difference between changing your mind and promptly correcting an error or omission. There isn't arbitration-specific policy on this but the ""Not" policy says "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request". Roger Davies talk 12:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- How does the committee determine that something is "changing your mind and promptly correcting an error or omission," vs "changing your vote?" What is there to protect users from someone going back 3 years to change their vote on something? Can ex-arbs change their votes in closed cases? How about disgraced ex-arbs? Hipocrite (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's OK to change one's mind about something - indeed, it can be a sign of reflection. I am quite comfortable with the notion that an arbiter makes a vote for an action and then changes it during a case. Indeed, I did it myself in the just closed Race & Intelligence case when more information was presented. When the case is closed then a vote itself cannot be changed, but the arbiter may later change their mind about making the vote, and is entitled to say so. For reasons of stability of the project, Committee decisions are binding, but that does not mean they are always right, nor that everyone in the Committee agrees with them, nor that a Committee member will not have regrets about voting for a particular remedy. A request for amendment can be made if a remedy appears to be inappropriate, though there is an expectation that - depending on the amendment request - a reasonable time is given to allow the effects of the remedy to be felt. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- It appears to me that one can change their mind on something right up until the point a decision is made, and then you can't. Perhaps you disagree - as in this case, where you obviously disagree, in that you believe someone can change their vote after a decision was made, undoing the decision and reforming it in a different way. How long before a decision requires a "request for amendment," as opposed to just canvassing arbs that you think might change their vote after decision are made? Hipocrite (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not an arb, but I would compare this to the practice of judges correcting an opinion after issuing it but prior to publication with issuing an order amending the prior opinion. Either way works, but the correcting prior to publication works only so long as it hasn't been published. Translating that to the wiki-world, I would say that after the point the decision has been archived from WP:AC/N, it should require an amendment to change as it has been "published to the archive," while the notice page itself is a bit like a slip opinion. MBisanz talk 17:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
It's OK for an arbiter to change their view, opinion, allegiance or religion, and they can express regret for decisions they have made, but they can't unilaterally go back to a closed case and change a vote. Outcomes of a closed case can only be changed by amendment when there is an open and accountable discussion voted on by the whole Committee. If there is an instance of an arbiter going back to a 3 year old closed case and changing their vote that would need to be pointed out as that would be an error. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Quick question
Hello, just a quick question. It appears Risker gave the net fourth vote on closing the Rich Farmbrough case a bit of 24 hours ago. Could an arbitrator clarify whether it will be closed within the next, say, 12 hours? I'm asking so I know whether to list the RF case as closed for my Signpost article. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Probably not, as it's a weekday and the clerks may not be immediately available to do it. Roger Davies talk 13:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- All right. Thanks! -- Lord Roem (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I might try to get to it today or tonight. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- All right. Thanks! -- Lord Roem (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough closed
- This has been a very bad decision. Undue weight was given to Brad being a bit stubborn, uncommunicative, and a bit uncooperative, and short shrift was given to the opinions of the many people who thanked him, gave awards to him, feel themselves and the project indebted to him, and the quite serious disruption to important projects and harm to the entire project that results from this action. Several of the "charges" against Rich seem to be very petty indeed. The words used to support "abusiveness" on his part were the kind of thing more mature Wikipedians would laugh off and take on the chin for the sake of the project. How many of us have suffered much clearer cases of "abuse" but didn't feel the need to push a formal process to have the person banned, effect on the project be damned, just because you have been insulted? And this man was very useful! This was no ordinary editor. His bots do the work of thousands of manhours in very short time and move the whole increasingly unweildy project forward by keeping an eye on thousands of things, catching serious errors that had stood for a very long time, making a mockery of the project. For more details, check out his user and talk pages, look at the praise for and accompishments of this good Wikipedian. For the other "offensives", they these ten administrators point to nothing that can be shown to have harmed the project, it was all depicted as a sort of defense of principles, only, and a look at the long list of accomplishments, praise, and Wikilove was not given due weight! There was even a kerfuffle about him changing tiny bits of whitespace, my lord, who cares? Let it go, for crissake, or better said for the sake of the project. Please run the process again, this time taking into consideration a thourough investigation into his accomplishments and the serious disruption to the project that results from this rash, uninformed, disruptive, and punitive decision. Chrisrus (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)